While this Protocol is, and doubtless always will be, called "The Protocol of Geneva," its official name is "Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes."[8]
[1] Article 8. The text of the Covenant is Annex A, p. 117.
[2] Those who criticize the use of the word "disarmament" as meaning a reduction or limitation of armaments, should consult the dictionaries. The Standard Dictionary gives the following definition:
"The act of disarming; especially, the reduction of a military or naval establishment to a peace footing."
"The act of disarming; the reduction of military and naval forces from a war to a peace footing; as 'a general disarmament is much to be desired.'"
The Century Dictionary also gives the following quotation as an instance from Lowe's Life of Bismarck:
"He (Napoleon) in a fit of irresolution broached in Berlin the question of mutual disarmament."
[3] See, for example, the preamble to the Military, Naval and Air Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles: "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."
[4] The Treaty of Lausanne (A. J. I. L., Vol. XVIII, Supp., pp. 58, 64) with its provisions for demilitarized zones, etc., and the Convention for the Limitation of Armaments in Central America of February 7, 1923 (A. J. I. L., Vol. XVII, Supp. 1923, pp. 114, _et seq._), are to be noted in this regard.
[5] For the text in French and English, see Annex B, p. 132.
[6] Sixteen States have signed the Protocol and it has been ratified by Czechoslovakia.
[7] See Report to the Fifth Assembly, Annex C, p. 156, at p. 164. This Report of MM. Benes and Politis is a notable document, worthy of the ability and learning of the two Rapporteurs.
[8] It is herein generally called "the Protocol."
There are various possible points of approach to the consideration of the Protocol of Geneva. In view of the importance of the document, doubtless all such methods are useful. Indeed, in the discussion of such a paper, it is perhaps hardly possible exclusively to adopt only one angle of view, such as the historical, the political, etc. My own consideration of the paper, however, is to be primarily from the legal viewpoint; without attempting wholly to avoid other points of view I shall seek not to stress them.